CNN poll shows Obama personal qualities sliding underwater

posted at 9:01 am on November 25, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

We are starting to see a broad polling trend for Barack Obama, and it should have the White House worried — but maybe Obama’s fellow Democrats in Congress even more. The latest CNN poll confirms what the Washington Post/ABC poll first noticed, and what the CBS poll corroborated — Obama’s approval decline involves more than just his performance. The Americans public is souring on Obama as a person and as a brand, and that spells real trouble for his agenda:

Only four out of 10 Americans believe President Barack Obama can manage the federal government effectively, according to a new national poll.

And a CNN/ORC International survey released Monday morning also indicates that 53% of Americans now believe that Obama is not honest and trustworthy, the first time that a clear majority in CNN polling has felt that way.

According to the survey, conducted last Monday through Wednesday, 40% say the President can manage the government effectively. That 40% figure is down 12 percentage points from June and is the worst score Obama received among the nine personal characteristics tested in the new poll.

In fact, Obama is plummeting across the board:

Obama’s woes are not limited to honesty and his managerial skills. Fifty-six percent say he is not a person they admire, and an equal number say he does not agree with them on important issues. Fifty-six percent also say he does not inspire confidence, and 53% don’t view him as a strong and decisive leader. All of those figures are all-time records for Obama in CNN polling.

Democratic leaders claim the bungled launch of Obamacare is just the latest news sensation — a media-stirred tempest that looks in the heat of the moment like it could upend the midterm election, but ends up fizzling well before voters head to the polls.

Some party strategists say they’re in denial.

And that perceived gap between party spin and facts on the ground is fueling worries that the White House and Democratic higher-ups aren’t taking the possible electoral blowback seriously enough or doing enough to shield their candidates. …

So while Pelosi and Wasserman Schultz insist they aren’t worried about Obamacare’s impact on 2014, the candidates facing tough races are acting worried. This month, 39 Democrats — the vast majority of them from swing districts — broke with the White House to support a Republican bill that would allow insurance companies to continue selling plans that don’t comply with Obamacare requirements through next year.

And some of them are taking a step further and taking shots at the White House. In an interview with CBS News, West Virginia Rep. Nick Rahall — one of the 39 party-bucking Democrats — said he wasn’t sure Obama had the “legal underpinning” for his fix that would allow people to retain health care plans that don’t comply with the ACA’s benefit standards for another year.

“There’s a rash of polls out this week showing Obama’s approval going down and the generic ballot closing. That explains why people are doing what they’re doing,” Frederick said.

Some people, Frederick said, “are seeing this as a disaster and they’re trying to run away from it.”

If the polling is accurate, it seems as though the American public is running away from Obama, too. Unfortunately for Democrats, they won’t be able to distance themselves from the disastrous ObamaCare they shoved down everyone’s throats, along with the rest of the second-term debacles that they have enabled by their support of a President perceived by a majority as both incompetent and dishonest.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

The folks who are getting the free stuff don’t like the folks who are paying for the free stuff, because the folks who are paying for the free stuff can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff.

And the folks who are paying for the free stuff want the free stuff to stop.

And the folks who are getting the free stuff want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting!

Now… the people who are forcing the people who pay for the free stuff have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff that the people who are PAYING for the free stuff are being mean, prejudiced, and racist.

So… the people who are GETTING the free stuff have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free stuff by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free stuff and giving them the free stuff in the first place.

We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free stuff than paying for the free stuff.

Now understand this. All great democracies have committed financial suicide somewhere between 200 and 250 years after being founded. The reason?

The voters figured out they could vote themselves money from the treasury by electing people who promised to give them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them.

The United States officially became a Republic in 1776, 236 years ago. The number of people now getting free stuff out numbers the people paying for the free stuff.

Failure to change that spells the end of the United States as we know it.
ELECTION 2014 IS COMING

The folks who are getting the free stuff don’t like the folks who are paying for the free stuff, because the folks who are paying for the free stuff can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff.

And the folks who are paying for the free stuff want the free stuff to stop.

And the folks who are getting the free stuff want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting!

Schadenfreude on November 25, 2013 at 1:40 PM

With all respect, I think this isn’t entirely the right tack to take. In fact, this was largely Romney’s argument, with the 47% vs 53%, and I think it hurt him with a lot of people who might otherwise have been receptive to a conservative message.

The problem with the argument is that that 47% includes plenty of Republicans, and even conservatives, who are near or even below the poverty line largely because of the left’s disastrous policies endorsed over the years. This group of people also includes many people who, though not understanding economics and principles of liberty, are still not inclined to want to take from others. The problem is, even though they are “net takers” according to the balance sheet, the reality is that the Government’s disastrous interference with the economy has made it so that it isn’t a zero-sum game; it’s negative sum. The government transfers money from people with more to people with less, but then screws everything up so that even the people who are “benefiting” often don’t actually experience a corresponding increase in quality of life.

So if you tell people that they’re “takers”, it’s not going to ring true, either to them, or to many of their friends and family, and people who interact with them in general.

We DO need to get back to the point where we don’t have so many people getting all these benefits, but that’s never going to happen as long as excessive government regulations and nanny-statism drive up everyone’s cost of living.

I think we really need to focus more on slashing regulations and removing government mandates and coercion regarding who we live our lives – the ability to straighten out the redistribution will be much easier if the working poor aren’t terrified that voting Republican will consign them, or the people they care about, to poverty.

Bottom line – we will never get people off of welfare unless we first stop the government from pushing them on it by chasing away investors and entrepreneurs.

The difference between The One and Tammy Faye’s worse half is that Jimbo was a beta male type who lucked into an incredibly lucrative scam. Which in the end caused him to repeatedly let his mouth write checks the rest of him couldn’t cash. (Oral Roberts had the same problem, and ended up nearly as delusional as Bakker.)

The One is a beta male who thinks he’s an alpha, and is constantly trying to prove it. Which means he both tends to act out when doing so is counterproductive, and when faced with a genuine challenge he tends to fold.

I’m talking about real-world problems, not politics, here. He can’t handle a natural disaster, can’t handle an oil spill (non-natural disaster), and has to rename terrorism a “man-caused disaster” to deal with it emotionally. (People who insist on euphemisms for nasty events tend to be emotionally fragile, according to Abnormal Psych 101. “Emotionally Fragile” is not something you want on the resume’ of POTUS.)

Far from being “wimpy”, when challenged on their dogmas, such pseudo-alphas tend to lash out. They’re like the alpha lion of a pride, in that they see any difference of opinion, or even revelation of a fact that conflicts with their worldview, as a direct and deadly threat to their position of power.

And they react by attacking. Not the problem, but whoever dared to disagree with them. Every time.

They operate on the principle of

“It’s only a problem if I admit it exists. Get rid of the b******d who called me on it- get rid of the problem.”

No, it doesn’t work that way in the real world, but keep in mind that The One comes from academia, where it’s very easy to “get rid” of anyone foolish enough to go against the “received truth” and “conventional wisdom”. It’s even easier for a “community organizer”. (See Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers by Tom Wolfe.)

His biggest problem is that he has applied the lessons he learned in the faculty lounge and Chicago “politics” (more like a “thugocracy”) to governing. And no matter how eager his acolytes are to ostracize anyone who dares to disagree with their Godhead, the rest of the world can’t be disregarded so easily.

The difference between The One and Bakker is the difference between Mussolini and Hess.

Hess flew to England to escape his personal demons. Mussolini rode his down in flames, and till the end was doing his utmost to take others with him.

A certain Austrian watercolorist had exactly the same attitude as Il Duce, but was rather more successful at the “taking others with him” part.

We DO need to get back to the point where we don’t have so many people getting all these benefits, but that’s never going to happen as long as excessive government regulations and nanny-statism drive up everyone’s cost of living.

I think we really need to focus more on slashing regulations and removing government mandates and coercion regarding who we live our lives – the ability to straighten out the redistribution will be much easier if the working poor aren’t terrified that voting Republican will consign them, or the people they care about, to poverty.

Bottom line – we will never get people off of welfare unless we first stop the government from pushing them on it by chasing away investors and entrepreneurs.

RINO in Name Only on November 25, 2013 at 2:52 PM

I agree. The focus has to be on changing the message from the progressive promises of equality of results to the promises of equality of opportunity.

The challenge is that there are a growing number of people who cannot accept personal responsibility or accountability for their actions. They are utterly afraid of risk – both because they don’t have the education or confidence to see success and because they fear, what they think would be the more likely failure.

It’s hard to undo half a century of government building and trapping millions in a cycle of dependency while the same government mindset also guts the education and family structures needed to help them see the possibilities of success. It can’t be done overnight – but the message has to be argued with success stories highlighted just as the left uses ‘failure’ stories to justify expanding the government largesse.

A prominent local activist for LGBT and anti-bullying causes has been indicted on more than a dozen charges of sexual conduct with a minor.

Caleb Laieski, 18, has been nationally recognized for his advocacy, after overcoming anti-gay bullying that led him to drop out of high school. He was prominently featured in an anti-bullying documentary, earned a gig acting as a youth and diversity advocate for Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton’s office, and even met with President Obama and Vice President Biden to talk about LGBT youth issues.